The Battle for Dominance: African Politicians vs. Governing institutions
Democracy is often judged by how elections are conducted. But in many African countries today, the deeper test is no longer about how leaders come into power. It is about what happens when they are challenged by the very institutions meant to regulate that power...
Democracy is often judged by how elections are conducted. But in many African countries today, the deeper test is no longer about how leaders come into power. It is about what happens when they are challenged by the very institutions meant to regulate that power. Across the continent, a pattern is emerging where political actors resist court rulings, contest parliamentary decisions, and openly challenge constitutional authority when outcomes go against them. The result is a growing tension between elected power and institutional control.
This tension is not abstract. It is playing out in real political crises across several countries, revealing a recurring question: in moments of conflict, do institutions ultimately constrain power, or do powerful individuals bend institutions to their will?
Kenya: When Political Defeat Meets Institutional Resistance
In Kenya, recent political developments involving former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua have reignited debate about the strength of constitutional authority. Following an impeachment process that was upheld through legal and institutional channels, his rejection of the outcome sparked wider discussions about whether political elites fully accept judicial and parliamentary decisions when they lose internal battles for power.
The Kenyan case highlights a familiar pattern: institutional processes function as designed, but political acceptance of those outcomes becomes the real test of legitimacy. In other words, legality alone is not enough. The authority of institutions depends not only on courts and parliaments making decisions, but on political actors choosing to respect them.
Liberia: A Prolonged Battle Over Parliamentary Authority
A similar struggle has unfolded in Liberia, where disputes over the speakership of the House of Representatives have exposed deep tensions within the country’s legislative system.
In early 2024, Speaker Jonathan Fonati Koffa was controversially removed from office by a faction within the House, triggering months of political uncertainty and legal contestation. What followed was not a swift institutional resolution, but a prolonged struggle over legitimacy, authority, and interpretation of parliamentary rules.
For nearly a year, the dispute moved between political negotiation and legal scrutiny, with competing factions claiming legitimacy over leadership of the House. At the centre of the crisis was a fundamental question: when internal parliamentary processes are contested, who ultimately has the final authority, the legislature itself, or the courts interpreting its actions?
The eventual court-backed resolution did not fully erase the political tensions that had already been created. Instead, it underscored how fragile institutional authority can become when political divisions override procedural consensus.
Liberia’s experience illustrates a broader reality: even where constitutional mechanisms exist, their effectiveness depends heavily on whether political actors are willing to accept outcomes that do not favour them.
South Africa: Courts Tested by Executive Defiance
In South Africa, one of the continent’s strongest constitutional systems has also faced moments of strain. Former President Jacob Zuma’s repeated confrontations with the judiciary, culminating in a prison sentence for contempt of court, became a defining test of the country’s institutional resilience.
The episode was not only about one individual. It became a wider examination of whether even powerful political figures are fully subject to judicial authority. While South Africa’s courts ultimately enforced their rulings, the political resistance surrounding the process revealed the pressures institutions face when their decisions intersect with entrenched political influence.
The South African case is often cited as evidence that institutions can prevail. But it also shows that such victories are rarely smooth or uncontested.
Zambia and Malawi: Contrasting Institutional Outcomes
In Zambia, disputes involving former President Edgar Lungu over eligibility and political participation raised similar constitutional questions about how far courts can define the boundaries of political competition. These debates reflected the ongoing role of the judiciary in arbitrating political disputes in contexts where legal interpretation carries significant political consequences.
Malawi, by contrast, offers a different reference point. Following the landmark annulment of the 2019 presidential election by the Constitutional Court, the country proceeded to a rerun election. The peaceful acceptance of that judicial decision is often cited as an example of institutional strength and democratic maturity, where constitutional rulings were implemented without prolonged institutional breakdown.
Taken together, these cases show that outcomes vary significantly across contexts. In some instances, institutions assert authority effectively. In others, political resistance weakens or delays institutional enforcement.
The Core Pattern: Power Versus Procedure
Despite their differences, these cases reveal a shared pattern across African democracies. Political power often does not end at the ballot box or within constitutional procedures. Instead, it continues through informal contestation, institutional resistance, and prolonged legal or political disputes.
At the centre of this pattern is a structural tension: institutions are designed to regulate power, but they depend on political actors for their legitimacy and enforcement. When powerful individuals reject unfavourable outcomes, institutions are forced into a defensive position, relying on legal authority without guaranteed political compliance.
This creates a situation where constitutional order exists on paper, but its practical strength is constantly being tested in moments of political conflict.
Why Institutional Authority Matters
The importance of these struggles goes beyond individual political disputes. Institutional stability is closely tied to public trust, governance effectiveness, and long-term democratic consolidation.
When citizens observe political leaders openly resisting court rulings or parliamentary decisions, it can weaken confidence in the fairness and predictability of governance systems. Over time, this erosion of trust can contribute to political instability, reduced investor confidence, and weaker compliance with the rule of law.
Conversely, when institutions are seen to function effectively even in politically sensitive cases, they reinforce the idea that power is subject to rules, not individuals.
A Continent-Wide Question
What makes these cases particularly significant is not that they are isolated, but that they are increasingly interconnected in theme. From Kenya to Liberia, South Africa to Zambia, African democracies are repeatedly confronting the same underlying question: what happens when political authority and institutional authority collide?
The answer is not uniform. In some cases, institutions assert themselves decisively. In others, political resistance delays or complicates enforcement. But across all contexts, the struggle itself is becoming more visible and more consequential.
The Real Test of Democracy
Ultimately, these developments suggest that the true measure of democratic maturity is not only how power is gained, but how it is constrained. Elections may determine who governs, but institutions determine how governance is exercised.
The central question is no longer whether Africa has democratic systems. It does. The question is whether those systems are strong enough to withstand pressure when powerful individuals refuse to accept outcomes that limit their authority.
In those moments, the balance between leaders and institutions becomes clear. And across Africa today, that balance is still being negotiated.
